Biggest Cinematic Let Downs

[clingfilm portent]

I think on reaching a point mid-adolescence I suddenly realised that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is, compared to the first two, one big creamy turd. I loved all the films as a kid of course and watched them repeatedly, and if you had asked me a kid which was my least favourite I would have nominated Temple of Doom for some non-reason like I didn't like the claustrophic feeling from the film: almost all of the film takes place in one country for a start, plus they're in caves and shit. But, similarly with BTTF III, something is off with the Last Crusade. Only its way, way off, yet its even harder to pin down why exactly. For convenience I'll just say it was boring.

Edit: ed to add that I realise this has become more of a 'shit sequels thread' now more than a 'films that you were aching to see that utterly ruined you'. I'm actually going to come out and say that 99% of the time I know if a film will be right for me or not. It's all in the trailer, folks.

[SavageHedgehog]

I think it's probably because they were half making it as an "apology" to the people that were put off by the supposedly "too dark" Temple of Doom, and the tone is just a bit too frivolous. There's something quite unpleasantly arrogant about making films to "make up" for the last one. OK, Highlander 3 you make more sense the last one, but you're really only a shitty B-movie about Mario Van Peebles eating condoms and licking blood off his sword, don't get too cocky. OK, so your predecessor showed no initiative and didn't know where to end a joke, but you, Terminator: Slavation, are just a bore. And as for you Superman Returns, sure you're not as stupid or inept as the previous couple of movies, but geez, at least stuff happened in them.

The last two do qualify for this thread I think, even though my expectations weren't that high.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The Last Crusade is good, so you can eat my bum.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

I think it may be my favourite of the Indy films. Connery and Ford are an ace pairing.

[SavageHedgehog]

The Last Crusade is good, so you can eat my bum.

It is good, so I'll pass thank you, but I do personally think it's the least of the original three.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Temple of Doom is my favourite of the original trilogy (ahem, 'OT').

For many reasons, but it absolutely caught me at the right time and remains one of my favourite films ever.  While in my overly-analytical mind I know that Raiders is the better movie, my heart still allots it the #2 slot.

[samadriel]

'Burn After Reading'?  More like 'Burn Before Viewing', am I right?!

Spoiler alert

Yes!

[close]

I'd already lost any illusions of the Coens being infallible -- I didn't like anything past Intolerable Cruelty, not even everyone's bloody favourite, 'No Country', pretty as it was -- but Burn After Reading seemed like quite a good idea for a farce in the 'Raising Arizona' vein, and yet it turned out to be a load of tossed-off shit.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

I was going to mention that. The Coens are pretty much my favourite comedy directors and, despite the slightly sub par Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers I had high hopes for Burn. No Country for Old Men had been a big return to form, the cast was excellent and the trailer full of funny bits, plus someone who had read the script told me it was really good. It all fell a bit flat though

[vrailaine]

A Serious Man disappointed me much more, the trailer had me really pumped for it and it wound up being the most boring, pointless thing of last year, but with some good characters.

[JPA]

Aw, I thought A Serious Man was great, I'd put it up there with my favourites of theirs.

As for Burn After Reading, it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I was expecting, funny performance from Pitt too, but the whole film just feels rather...slight.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Yup - mark me down for seeing A Serious Man as the real return to form for the Coens.

[Emma Raducanu]

Can I also just add that I loved A Serious Man? Is that allowed? I especially enjoyed the cinematic experience; a lovely weekday afternoon spend with sporadically seated film buffs, some making notes. Some laughing at scenes when no one else was laughing.

[Doomy Dwyer]

I thought A Serious Man was their best work since the Big Lebowski. Great performances all round, fantastic characterisations, wonderful dialogue, good looking film all round. The Coen Brothers really have made some impressive films over the years, which is why when they drop an occasional bollock a la Intolerable Cruelty or Burn After Reading, it seems like such a vast betrayal of trust and faith.

My most recent cinematic letdown was the Baader Meinhof Complex, although I did go along with ridiculously high expectations. I'm have an unhealthy interest in Weathermen/SLA/RAF type organizations, hopelessly idealistic revolutionary shitbags with amusing manifestos get me every time. It started quite well, but then descended rapidly into the biggest puddle of dribbly shit I've ever been unfortunate enough to bear witness too. Having said that, the lady who played Gudrun Ensslin was a delectable morsel and graciously obliged titswise, so it wasn't all bad.

[Feralkid]

At the time I considered Army of Darkness to be a huge let down, and I recall the reviews weren't exactly kind.   After the extraordinary ending of Evil Dead II the thought of picking up Ash's story in a dark and gritty B movie middle ages seemed like a can't lose proposition.  Alas, I remember being heartbroken by AoD's utter change of tone.  I loved the weird desaturated look of EDII's final minutes and its promise of a world mid-way between Roadwarrior and Terry Gilliam's Middle Ages.  So the crazy knockabout tone of Army was heartbreaking.  In later years I started to like the film on its own terms but it's not the sequel we were promised.

My other disappointments tend to be more obscure, usually low budget films which bungle great premises.  There's an Albert Pyun film called Radioactive Dreams and, true to form, it's a pish poor post nuclear B movie adventure film.  Its premise however is wonderful: boys locked in a nuclear bomb shelter as children, left with with only 40's detective novels for reading matter, emerge from their shelter as adults and try to negotiate their way through a punky post nuke dystopia whilst looking and acting like Bogart wannabes. 

[Repentia]

What make Dungeons and Dragons even worse, is the knowledge that the person ultimately responsible for the film wanted it to appear exactly as we see it on-screen. This was no Hollywood-maimed, best intentions gone askew type of affair. He battled long and hard to bring this wrongness before us, and not even Richard O'Brien in the scenes ripping off Space Hunter: Adventures In The Forbidden Zone almost frame for frame could lift it out of freefall.

How could this film be so bad? Bowling underarm to a receptive, niche audience, who would just about stretch to any awfulness if there was a glimmer of content, anywhere... and still he chose this?! Many enemies were made that foul day of betrayal.

Rumours of a sequel are true. Just... don't.

[non capisco]

The most recent one I can think of is 'Quantum Of Solace'. After really enjoying 'Casino Royale' as a pacey, tense reboot from the dire last few Brosnon ones its immediate sequel was a real disappointment. A plot-thin load of toot with Bond basically just going round the world fucking people up like Chuck Norris in a tux. I gather it was a victim of the writer's strike with all the second unit stuff filmed first and a script written round the action scenes to meet an imposed deadline. Whereas with 'Casino Royale' I found a Bond film compelling again for the first time since god knows when 'Quantum of Solace' brought the franchise back to a load of tenuously linked set-pieces. They could have followed straight on from 'Casino Royale' with a nice well-plotted nasty revenge thriller with a bit of oomph to it, exploring further the darker side of the hero as hired assassin, but for whatever reason it turned out a formless mess. And we're evidently going to have to wait a bit to see what they do for the next one.

[confettiinmyhair]

Can I also just add that I loved A Serious Man? Is that allowed? I especially enjoyed the cinematic experience; a lovely weekday afternoon spend with sporadically seated film buffs, some making notes. Some laughing at scenes when no one else was laughing.

Me too. The film was a return to form after the disappointing Burn After Reading  - where big personality actors conflicted with the plot, when a subtle performance, and less stage presence was required to convey the farcical nature of life.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Anything by Terry Gilliam since 1996. Especially Tideland, which he had claimed was an 'uninterfered-with' film and represented pure Gilliam. After having seen it, I was praying that he went back to the studios!

Yep. Loved Twelve Monkeys but I've found everything else he's done since then to be pretty lame.

Repo Man - I'd heard this was ace but couldn't stand it. I can't stand Alex Cox either, bitterly bleating on about Spielberg and Scorsese. He was good on Moviedrome though.

[Little Hoover]

I'm going to confound you all by saying I really liked Burn After Reading, maybe I had lower expectations, because it was only really since that it set me off on catching up with The Coen's other work as I'd neglected them for some reason, but it's a fun story with funny characters, it's maybe lacking in other areas but it's great.

[phantom_power]

My other disappointments tend to be more obscure, usually low budget films which bungle great premises.  There's an Albert Pyun film called Radioactive Dreams and, true to form, it's a pish poor post nuclear B movie adventure film.  Its premise however is wonderful: boys locked in a nuclear bomb shelter as children, left with with only 40's detective novels for reading matter, emerge from their shelter as adults and try to negotiate their way through a punky post nuke dystopia whilst looking and acting like Bogart wannabes. 

wow, that has brought back memories. i remember being fascinated by the cover in the video shop when i was a kid. i can't remember whether i ever actually saw it or not though. it sticks in my mind, along with the video dead, american ninja, love at first bite and johnny dangerously (and many others) as films that epitomise the early years of vhs where local shops had a seemingly random selection of videos on their shelves

[Mr Colossal]

hah.  I can rememeber the cover too.  The joys of independents...  Back then it wasnt all sewn up by the likes of blockbusters and you got the impression that outside of the big straight from cinema releases- which had multiple copies and were nearly always all out (i can remember you had to reserve them) and on their own shelf-  that the proprieters would otherwise be happy to devote the rest of the shop to giving pretty much anything a crack of the whip, so you were always drawn to the more elaborate case designs whenever you were left empty-handed or needed a third film for your 'buy 2 get 1 free' weekly deals.    But what more can you expect from a post apocalyptic comedy from the director of kickboxer 2 starting american ninjas michael dudikoff!? But I can see how one might read the description and come away thinking they were going to be served up with something akin to Alex Cox's repo man...    Most of Pyun's films fall into the 'unexplicably unavailable on dvd' category the few torrents of vhs rips seem to have long been dead too...

[Serge]

Anything by Terry Gilliam since 1996. Especially Tideland, which he had claimed was an 'uninterfered-with' film and represented pure Gilliam. After having seen it, I was praying that he went back to the studios!

I love 'Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas'. In fact, one of my biggest regrets is the fact that a few years ago, I saw Gilliam walking down Dean St in Soho, and didn't go up and tell him how much I loved it.

Another fan of 'Burn After Reading' here, too.